Talk:War of 1812

Why the British won the War of 1812

Why the British won the War of 1812 In reply to GABaker's post (above)

(1) The US goal of invading Canada was defeated

(2) The US war goal of stopping impressment was not acheived. It stopped before the war, and the British refused to sign away their right to impress in the treaty

(3) Military the US lost most of the land battles.

(4) The Brits generally only lost land battles when they were attacking dug in troops, or outnumbered. In contract, the US lost a number of battles to smaller forces.

(5) The British army ended the war occupying US soil. They were preparing to attack mobile when the treaty was signed. There was no US army challenging them in the field. In an historical sense, victory is given in a battle to the army that possess the field at the end of the conflict.

(6) In summary, at the end of the war, the British army was in US territory. It possessed Maine, and its Navy completely controlled the water. If anything(though the treaty was signed and previous frontiers returned) the war was a tactical victory for the British Empire.

(1)If the US goal was to invade Canada then that goal was met. Canada was invaded ;) Can you cite what the US's goals with respect to Canada were? Can you cite any territorial demands made by the Americans on any Canadian territory before, during or immediately after the war?

(2)The brits never again used impressment so this can't be cited as a loss for the US

(3)The US lost most of their land battles in the war for indepenance and the Viet Cong and north vietnamese lost essentially *all* of their land battles against the US in the Vietnam war. Number of battles won or lost doesn't dictate the results of a war.

(4)see (3)

(5) nonsense. A war can even be lost when a participant is in control of territory many times what they held at the outset. For instance the Germans lost ww1 despite winning military control of vast territories on the East front and confining nearly all of the fighting to their enemies home turf on all fronts.

(6) The british navy was no more in control of the water at the end of the war than they were at it's beginning. Certainly they were unable to protect their shipping from US privateers.Zebulin 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mobile? Sorry, that was a sideshow. The real prize in North America is New Orleans, and the British failed there spectacularly.

There are only a few key ports that connect to river transport. Mobile is a fine seaport, but the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river systems drain in New Orleans. Please note that in the American Civil War that was the first key port the North grabbed from the south.

The U.S. Army won more battles than it lost towards the last year of the war: and in New Orleans, it defeated a Peninsular general. Trivial. The U.S. Army was a professional army in 1814, and the British knew it.

We gained control of the Great Lakes in 1814. Wellington knew that defeating the U.S. was impossible without control of these lakes, and advised against any such attempt.

I don't know why people seem so eager to pin a defeat on the U.S. when the U.S. came out of the war with its intangible war goals accomplished. Yes, the Southerners didn't grab Canada; but we grabbed the rest of the continent. I think part of this is the "we need to bring the Yanks down a peg/I hate American" attitude. But, on terms of achievement, the U.S. made it clear it was the power on North America, and no British development in less populous, more open Canada was going to balance that. Let Britain have the rest of the world. We got the part we wanted. -- GABaker 7 August 2007 0136 UTC.

To clarify, why the British won the war of 1812

(1)US tried to invade Canada, each invasion force with objectives. Objectives not taken, invasion forces defeated. By end of war, all US invasion forces repulsed from Canadian soil

(2)The Brits stopped using Impressment before the war began, because of US concerns, and, militarily, the need for impressment was no longer there ...so the war's prosecution did not result in the stopping of impressment

(3)True, and a good point. The Number of land battles by itself doesn't dictate a war lost or gained, but in context, with other factors, it definitely says something. In this case, the reason why the US lost most of the land battles does relate to why they lost the war.

(4) See 3

(5) Actually, being in possession of territory at the end of a war does generally indicate who is winning. The example you gave of WW1, with the Germans losing, but having a lot of land at the end of WW1 is pretty unusual. Most wars end with the loser having less land at the end of the war than they did at the beginning, if they end up with any land at all eg WW2, Falklands, gulf war 1, gulf war 2, Korea, Boer war, Vietnam, Russian Civil war, Iran-Iraq war.

(6) True, they weren't in control of the seas in the sense that there were privateers (from both sides) active. However, militarily the Royal Navy had tightened their blockade on US ports to the point where the US couldn't challenge it, except to blockade run. Privateers could attack British Merchant shipping (and certainly did), however the Brits had privateers from the UK, Canada and Bermuda attacking US shipping. All up, more US ships were captured than British, and the Brits had a bigger merchant (and Naval) fleet anyway. Plus the Brits were using American shipping from New England to get supplies for their army in Spain, which (I'm guessing?) weren't attacked. Overall, by wars end, the RN had blockaded the ports and this was affecting the US economically and militarily.

GABaker. You talk about the amazing feat of a little country standing up against a giant and surviving. You're thinking that little country is the US. But I'm thinking of CANADA. Deathlibrarian 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember the United States was a small country then, too. -- GABaker

There was no country of Canada in 1812-1814. --Noren 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

and even if we pretend there was it was a case of Canada and it's big brother vs the US not Canada vs the US.Zebulin 16:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Napoleonic wars is forgotten here. That got most of Britain's attention for most of the war. For two years. Tourskin 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

To further illustrate the point, if Mexico declared war and invaded the United States and America responded by repelling the invaders, launching a counter attack and razing Mexico City to the ground I think most Americans would consider that a slam dunk victory.

They BOTH won the war

I think this is sort of common wisdom now - regardless of # of casualties or who won what victory when or who burned whose capital and which was more important, both countries FELT like they had won the war. Technically one might call it a draw, given the status quo ante bellum treaty ending. It would be more accurate, though - if more abstract - to look at the issue from a historiographic view and let both sides be the victors, since both sides felt that way.

So who lost the war? Easy answer to that one: the Indians.

Incidentally I noticed Pierre Berton's account is not on the reference list (unless I'm overlooking it). I thought it was a good read, if perhaps a little pro-Canada. Dmhaglund 14:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the Americans got the ability to head to the west and take all whilst the British held onto Canada. Victory for all.Tourskin 01:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting to keep Canada is a victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.185.164 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, getting to keep Canada is a victory.Acanadian 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)acanadian

News flash: THE WAR OF 1812 IS OVER!!!

It seems that the war lives on in the minds of many contributors to this talk page. However, the Treaty of Ghent was signed by the combatants in 1814-1815. The result: Status quo ante bellum. The article reflects this.

This page is for discussion of changes to the article—not for endless rehashing of the war. Read the archives. It has all been said before. If you must discuss it, find a blog. Time to move on. Sunray 17:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh..yeah. Thanks for the information. It is completely relevant to be discussed here because this page is one of the most pro US biased pages on Wikipedia that I have come across. A facet of information for this page is being discussed. If you don't like it, you simply don't have to read it. This page constantly reflects people unhappy with the US bias on this page.This is wikipedia, people should be free to discuss problems with a page as much as they feel the need. Deathlibrarian 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I think we should bring some focus to your concern. The debate over who won has been continuing for three years. That is not germane to these pages. So how about you raise some specific points that document your concern about bias. Then, perhaps we can deal with them. Sunray 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I am being too amorphous and should focus on exactly what issues, and I'm not being particularly helpful by being general. However the who won the war thing is something that should be addressed here. Clearly people are not happy about how it is presented here, as the topic keeps coming up. While the US wikipedia editors are happy with the result, editors from other countries seem to not see it so. It really can't be pushed ot the side, it will always be brought up here until the article reflects various viewpoints on who won....and so it should.

There is a lot of bias that Americans wouldn't notice. An example is the introduction box. It has the reasons for why the US declared war, and their greivances...but says nothing about Britain and how they thought their reasons were unfounded, and how the saw the war as opportunistic.203.35.150.226 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? Sunray 07:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wether I have sources for it or not, there is no description of UK reaction, just a statement of what the US saw as their grievances. I can tell you, without source, that the UK did not welcome an attack on their lightly defended colony while they were in a life or death struggle with Napoleon.Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC) "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" by Arthur Herman. I believe this book details more British opinion, I don't have it though. There aren't a lot of British commentary on the war because everthing at the time was written about Waterloo!! Deathlibrarian 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that both sides accomplished most if not all of their war aims. War is not a zero-sum game. Often in war, both sides lose; this was a rare case when both sides won. It's hard to imagine that--it's counter intuitive-- but it happens. GABaker 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)GABaker -- 8 Aug 2007 1445 UTC.

I agree with the statement that this article is very pro-US. If the war was a draw, why does the article seem so focused on the US achievements? Surely it should be more balanced --Alex 15:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

let's start with just the overview. Can you name specific US achievements that should be removed there? Can you name some British achievments that should be added there? Let's see if we even agree that the overview at least is balanced before tackling the rest of the article.Zebulin 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that both sides won is interesting. The Americans won pride and nationalism and with it the ability to conquer the west without too much British interference. The British were able to hold on to their lightly defended colony and pursue a so called "Gunboat diplomacy". Tourskin 02:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Article

For me at least it is very true that this war is hardly remembered in Britain. I just found out about it by reading this article. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.223.193.144 (talk) 01:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Raised in Britain, I remember reading one page of this from one history revision guide by Letts (it was light cream in colour and had all wierd history symbols and pics on it). So yes, this war, which I think the British should be proud of just as the Americans are, severly under-cover it. If thats even a term. Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol not that I editted much of this tho!Tourskin 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am British and take a keen interest in British history, especially regarding the British Empire. However, I never knew about the 1812 war until just a year ago when a fleeting mention (about four words) was made of the war with America in Lawrence James's definitive history of the British Empire - 'The Rise and Fall of the British Empire' (1999). Subsequent to this, I have found out about the war mostly from American sources such as wikipedia - you are hard pressed to find any mention of it in the UK. It appears that this was a big event in America's history - a battle with their old colonial masters - yet to the UK it was nothing but a minor sideshow to the European war with Napoleon. If the US had actually achieved any form of concrete victory such as conquering Canada, then maybe it would get a mention! As it stands its one of the forgotten Imperial conflicts that Britain seemingly was having in all parts of the globe with numerous other nations at the time. The article is very biased towards the American view by the way and seems to spin it as some sort of victory, but perhaps this is because hardly any British scholars have attached any signficance to it. In a sense, Britain largely maintained the 'Status Quo' which since this meant Britain would remain on top, was its main goal of military conflict at the time. Stuzzer 14:11 10th September 2007

any specific suggestions for fixing the bias? perhaps rewrites of some small portion of the article to illustrate the bias and changes you are proposing?Zebulin 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Combatants

Why has all the smaller parts of the British Empire been listed? Should we list all the states of the USA at this stage as well? Don't forget that whilst the listed combatants on the British side all have the Union Jack, the American states had their own flags, further strengthening my argument:

• We should either list the states of the US as well

OR

• Just label it as British Empire only.

I prefer the second option - in theory whenever the British Empire gose to war, volunteers can be raised from any of her colonies and yet we don't see a long list in every British Empire war.Tourskin 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree with it here. Reasoning being that there was a marked difference in training and quality between the British regulars (who wore red uniforms and probably came from England) and the Canadian militia (who didn't). The American forces were relatively more uniform in comparison. Bermuda hardly seems relevant as a 'combatant' though; I will remove it. Dmhaglund 14:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Its got the British Empire and Canada now. Tourskin 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "War hawks" terminology

Someone edited this page to say "war hawks" and other things that seem unbecoming of an encyclopedic article. Also, to say in the body of the article:

(According to the book by textbook author James W. Loewen in his book "Lies My Teacher Told Me") The most important cause of the war was land, Spanish land (Florida), British land (Canada), and the biggest chunk of land was the Indians land. After war was declared Britain offered to withdraw the trade restrictions, but it was too late for the American "War Hawks", who turned the conflict into what they called a "second war for independence." While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were ending impressment, ending harassment of mercantile shipping, and ending British military support for western native tribes, a major goal of the "war hawks" in the western and southern states was aggressive territorial expansion.

This seems more like an expression of opinion than anything. While I don't necessarily think that this following statement is true, I do think that it would be much more appropriate than the current one. My proposed revision: "While the officially-stated reasons for declaring war were --such-and-such--, --such-and-such-scholar-- believed that a major goal of those American politicians in favor of the war in the western and southern states was territorial expansion.(some citation listed here)" Since no citation is given for this statement here, I would say that it needs to be removed, since it is a biased statement based on original research or non-cited sources.

Even my proposed version seems to be weasely, so I think that this should be written to "show" and not just to "tell" the reader what to think.

At very least, the statement that "a major goal of the "war hawks"...(etc.)" should be qualified by a phrase that indicates that it is a view of someone in particular, instead of just flat-out saying it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotbeat (talk • contribs) 16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the War Hawks were a recognizable faction who figured prominently in the debate about going to war, I certainly think that it is appropriate to mention them. However, we do need better citations for this section. Couldn't that be dealt with by placing "citation needed" tags on the specific statements that need citations? Sunray 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

The commanders box seems a bit lop-sided; there should probably be a few more listed for the British and Indians, and Seeing as how the Canadians are proud of their involvement, there should probably be a Canadian commander listed. Also On the American side, I think that William Henry Harrison should probably be added, as he did defeat Tecumseh.(Lucas(CA) 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Spain?`

Was spain truely involved in the war of 1812? I find this an unlikely idea, considering it was, until 1814, a puppet of the French. Narson 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)